PUBLICATION: The Toronto Sun
DATE: 2012.08.01
EDITION: Final
SECTION: Editorial/Opinion
PAGE: 17
BYLINE: LORNE GUNTER
WORD COUNT: 547
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independence day for western farmers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today Prairie farmers are free for the first time in nearly 70 years. August 1 marks the end of the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly (technically a monopsony -many sellers, one buyer) over Western Canadian wheat and barley harvests.
Admittedly, newfound freedom can be a bit unsettling. Nonetheless, despite the uncertainty, it is a glorious day for farmers' rights. It was never morally justifiable in a free country to require farmers to sell their grain only ever to a government agency.
Whenever I have made that argument in the past, I have been inundated with angry messages from pro-board farmers claiming that without the wheat board, farmers would be at the mercy of international grain conglomerates. They would make far less money than they could on their own.
So?
First of all, I doubt that assertion is true. True, there have been a few academic studies over the years that have claimed Western Canadian farmers have made more money when they pooled their harvests and let the board sell their grain than they would have made acting individually.
But nearly all of those studies have been based on sales data the board has chosen to release. Typically, the board is very secretive. It won't say what it makes from any particular sale and it has a vested interest in protecting its dominant place in Canada's grain chain. So you have to be a bit suspicious when it handpicks what data researchers may and may not see.
CHOSEN RESEARCHERS
Not coincidentally, the board has usually also chosen researchers who have previously shown themselves supportive of the single-desk marketing philosophy.
Hmm, ideologically sympathetic researchers using data carefully selected by a self-interested bureaucracy ... what were the chances the few studies on the wheat board's effectiveness were ever going to come to anti-board conclusions?
But even if it could be shown beyond any doubt that the board made every single farmer richer, there would still be no justification for forcing a single grain grower to sell his products only to a federal agency.
In a free country, we have to be free to make our own choices, even if those choices are wrongheaded.
But the board's monopoly was never about protecting farmers as a collective. It was always only about making sure bolder, free-market farmers didn't make more than their less adventuresome neighbours who didn't want to be bothered marketing their own grain.
The board was more about envy than equality.
OPTING OUT
If it had truly been about the collective power of farmers, why were farmers permitted to switch from wheat and barley to other crops? Fifteen years ago there were 140,000 farmers in the board system, today there are fewer than half that number. If it was so beneficial to force all wheat and barley farmers to market together, how could so many have been permitted to convert to non-board crops such as oats or legumes?
Pro-board producers who are still trying to preserve the monopoly in court (despite having been roundly rebuked by both the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench and the Federal Court of Appeal) claim the end of the monopoly is illegal because it was achieved despite the results of a farmer plebiscite conducted by the board last year showing support for the monopoly.
But like the favourable academic studies of the board's value, the board manipulated the plebiscite to get the results it wanted.
Today, despite the best efforts of statist farmers and wheat board directors, Western farmers may sell their crops to whomever they choose or set up flour mills or pasta plants without paying the board an exorbitant premium for the privilege.
It's a good day."
DATE: 2012.08.01
EDITION: Final
SECTION: Editorial/Opinion
PAGE: 17
BYLINE: LORNE GUNTER
WORD COUNT: 547
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independence day for western farmers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today Prairie farmers are free for the first time in nearly 70 years. August 1 marks the end of the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly (technically a monopsony -many sellers, one buyer) over Western Canadian wheat and barley harvests.
Admittedly, newfound freedom can be a bit unsettling. Nonetheless, despite the uncertainty, it is a glorious day for farmers' rights. It was never morally justifiable in a free country to require farmers to sell their grain only ever to a government agency.
Whenever I have made that argument in the past, I have been inundated with angry messages from pro-board farmers claiming that without the wheat board, farmers would be at the mercy of international grain conglomerates. They would make far less money than they could on their own.
So?
First of all, I doubt that assertion is true. True, there have been a few academic studies over the years that have claimed Western Canadian farmers have made more money when they pooled their harvests and let the board sell their grain than they would have made acting individually.
But nearly all of those studies have been based on sales data the board has chosen to release. Typically, the board is very secretive. It won't say what it makes from any particular sale and it has a vested interest in protecting its dominant place in Canada's grain chain. So you have to be a bit suspicious when it handpicks what data researchers may and may not see.
CHOSEN RESEARCHERS
Not coincidentally, the board has usually also chosen researchers who have previously shown themselves supportive of the single-desk marketing philosophy.
Hmm, ideologically sympathetic researchers using data carefully selected by a self-interested bureaucracy ... what were the chances the few studies on the wheat board's effectiveness were ever going to come to anti-board conclusions?
But even if it could be shown beyond any doubt that the board made every single farmer richer, there would still be no justification for forcing a single grain grower to sell his products only to a federal agency.
In a free country, we have to be free to make our own choices, even if those choices are wrongheaded.
But the board's monopoly was never about protecting farmers as a collective. It was always only about making sure bolder, free-market farmers didn't make more than their less adventuresome neighbours who didn't want to be bothered marketing their own grain.
The board was more about envy than equality.
OPTING OUT
If it had truly been about the collective power of farmers, why were farmers permitted to switch from wheat and barley to other crops? Fifteen years ago there were 140,000 farmers in the board system, today there are fewer than half that number. If it was so beneficial to force all wheat and barley farmers to market together, how could so many have been permitted to convert to non-board crops such as oats or legumes?
Pro-board producers who are still trying to preserve the monopoly in court (despite having been roundly rebuked by both the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench and the Federal Court of Appeal) claim the end of the monopoly is illegal because it was achieved despite the results of a farmer plebiscite conducted by the board last year showing support for the monopoly.
But like the favourable academic studies of the board's value, the board manipulated the plebiscite to get the results it wanted.
Today, despite the best efforts of statist farmers and wheat board directors, Western farmers may sell their crops to whomever they choose or set up flour mills or pasta plants without paying the board an exorbitant premium for the privilege.
It's a good day."